Thursday, March 11, 2010

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has really nice graphics, but its design has some glaring issues. With all of the cheerleading done by reviewers (not that they cover game design much in their reviews, anyway), I think some criticism is in order. Here are a few aspects of BFBC2 that have annoyed me repeatedly in my first 10 hours of playing the game, mostly in multiplayer.

They hate newbies and want them to fail.

BFBC2 has vertical advancement in its multiplayer. Lots of it. You advance as a player through god-knows-how-many levels and unlock equipment. You also advance in each class—assault, engineer, recon, medic. Your class-specific advancement takes the form of unlockables you earn by doing positive stuff (killing enemies, getting assists, capturing points, etc.) while playing as that class.

These unlockables add significant utility to your character. You cannot use your class-specific utility ability until you’ve unlocked it, which may take many matches.This is hideously awful design. Not only is a newb hampered by a lack of knowledge of the basic game mechanics, he also cannot be useful at a base level as his class would indicate. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare mitigated this issue by giving all characters, regardless of level, a full compliment of weapons and perks—increasing level unlocked a wider variety of weapons to choose from, it didn’t outright add new abilities on top of existing abilities that made your character significantly more powerful than someone of lower level.

It’s noticeably easier to get XP once you’ve unlocked your class abilities, as well—this means that the newbie is put through a slog of slow XP gimpiness and he has no way to avoid it. This is terrible design both as a vertical advancement system and as a mechanic in an FPS that should be entirely skill-based.

Grenade Hell

Taking one grenade’s damage will kill you. Modern Warfare took note of this peculiarity and added a “grenade danger indicator” graphic that lets you know where a nearby grenade has landed. BFBC2 gives you no indication that a grenade has landed nearby—the only way you can tell would be to actually see the grenade thrown. When you’re busy aiming an innacurate gun at your opponent and praying you’ll hit them, it’s difficult to see every little flying detail around you and differentiate between a grenade and, say, a piece of completely superfluous garbage fluttering in the wind.

In Global Agenda, grenades can’t kill you in one hit. There’s no grenade indicator graphic, but there is an audible “CLICK” sound when the grenade hits the ground. Grenades are also huge glowing balls of death, easily visible. Global Agenda’s third-person perspective allows a wide-enough field of view that you can usually see where grenades are coming from and react reasonably. Grenades are balanced in this fashion.

Grenades in BFBC2 are instant and near unavoidable death because there are no audio or visual cues unless you’re staring right at the person throwing the grenade. This is not balanced and it is not fun.

Big Maps Mean Marathons

My pinky hurts from holding down the shift key half the time so that I can get between parts of the map at a reasonable pace in the standard case of not being near any vehicles. The Conquest multiplayer mode will wear out your shift key in this fashion.

Big maps are great for vehicles—piloting a tank doesn’t make much sense in a small map. But the maps in BFBC2 are annoying large if you don’t have a vehicle. You usually won’t have a vehicle. The maps are large, but you still will regularly find that it makes no sense to drive a tank through much more than three or four clearly delineated pathways through the map. This makes vehicular combat usually pretty boring and predictable, because mobility is limited to a large enough extent for strategic maneuvering to be minimal.

Big maps cause gun balancing issues. Suddenly, the range of a weapon is critical information for the player to have, because he will regularly encounter situations where he can see enemies who are beyond his weapon’s effective range. Outranging your opponent can win you a battle in such an environment. Most weapons, unfortunately, aren’t particularly accurate at any but short-to-medium range—unfortunately there’s no indication of weapons’ effective ranges. Obviously snipers will dominate in such an environment.

Ever try drawing battle lines among 32 players who can spawn just about anywhere on a big map? So seldom is it clear who is attacking from where that the little pinhole first-person perspective through which I see the game is even more inadequate than usual to the task of giving me reasonable sensory data on my surroundings.

Other Assorted Annoyances

You need a shocking amount of XP earned before you gain access to the red dot sight. As I said in my post about CoD4, using iron sights is almost strictly inferior to using red dot sights. This is yet another example of how vertical advancement in an FPS can be surprisingly frustrating.

There’s no clear indication of the effective range of different weapons in BFBC2. This game has huge maps—you need to have a good feel for how far the gun will fire if you’re to gauge combat situations appropriately.

No clear sound when you hit an opponent. When firing a relatively inaccurate weapon at range, the little symbol that appears to indicate you’ve hit an opponent does not provide enough feedback for you to gauge the amount of damage you’ve dealt.

BFBC2 punishes you for being near an explosion by distorting your sound for several seconds. The game’s sound is already suspect—occasionally an appropriate echo or some such dazzle will be cool, but the sound isn’t as useful to me as the sound was in CoD4—punishing players who are already besieged by explosive-wielding enemies by stripping them of one perceptual input is unnecessary. If I don’t have my headphones on while playing, tanks can sneak up behind me without me noticing the audio cue.

There is so much bloom, random particles in the air, and camouflage that I find it very hard to see enemy combatants at range unless they’re moving. My eyes aren’t particularly good, but I notice that in this game, particularly, I have lots of trouble seeing enemy combatants.

Every vehicle and combatant icon on the radar (which could be quite nice otherwise) has a bloom effect on it that makes reading the radar completely impossible if there are more than a few players or vehicles in the same place. This is terrible primarily because you rely on the radar to choose where you want to deploy, and deploying in the right place consistently is a huge contributor towards capping points in conquest and winning games.

You can be a part of a squad of up to four players. Anyone can spawn on top of a squadmate anywhere they are on the map as long as they're alive. This means that where one enemy is, 3 more can instantly appear. This renders strategic movement moot to some extent, because a dead enemy will just be magically respawned with full health and ammo where his one remaining squadmate is camping right near where you just whooped his ass a minute ago.

Overall Impression So Far

I would give BFBC2 a mediocre review. It does nothing particularly well, but could be reliably enjoyable if I could see well enough to be effective in combat. 2.5/5.

25 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Something i noticed with the helicopters is the the draw distance seems to be very limited at anything other than what i would consider flying "on the deck" the details of objects and terrain simply disapear making it impossible to see any targets on the ground unless you are low enuff for every gun on the map to hit your chopper. This could have been my settings but i run the game at high settings for everything but AA/AF. I have given up on devs putting any realisim in their games. If this is deliberate then they are limiting the tactics that could be employed by players in the use of vehicles.

I've been playing first person shooters since Wolfenstein 3D. I've played Quake 2 (including the Action Quake addon), Quake 3, Unreal Tournament (all of them), Counterstrike (years worth), Tribes, Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I've been to many Lan Parties where we played Battlefield 1942 (and later Vietnam) for hours. Team Fortress and Modern Warfare 2 have both seen countless weeks of playing from me.

Having all that experience with FPS, I can soundly say that Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a HORRIBLE game.

The game is torn between 'fun' and 'realism'.

Several places where they chose realism have made the game not fun. Such as gravity, grenades, weapon range, etc.

Other places where I guess they thought they were adding fun in spite of realism, they ended up causing bad experiences. Your 'instant spawning on squad mates' example is spot on. Not anywhere realistic (which doesn't matter if fun) and not any fun at all.

Unlike Robert, I couldn't disagree more with all of your comments. Well, most. I'll address them.

Unlocking your class's base abilities is annoying, at first. I agree. But I also see the point of giving players a choice when they start the game. They can become competent and proficient with one class quickly, or they can spread out and be more versatile, but proficiency will take longer. It's not objectively bad design. YOU just don't like it. And it really doesn't take that long to get the base abilities. Couple hours max with each. And you're playing a game. It's not like someone is flicking your nutsack the entire time.

Contrary to your assessment, I've not found there's not much of a snowball effect to gaining experience because of perks/equipment. You gain more experience as you gain more experience with the game. Pay attention the next time you have a skilled, high ranking player in your squad. Watch what he does. Watch how he uses the map to his advantage. How he stays alive, picks his spots. Pay attention to how your guns don't always (in fact, only infrequently) actually get BETTER as you rank up. My recon class has three sniper rifles unlocked and I'm still using the first one. I still use my RPG on my engineer very often, despite having the anti-tank mines and M2 AT. Again, it's preference. Not always better.

Grenades are simply not an issue. Each class has, by default, one. And to get more you have to give up equally more more valuable perks. The maps are large, as you complain about later. This largely mitigates the irritating grenade kills MW suffers from. I've killed a grand total of 4 people with grenades so far (rank 8), and three of those were a lucky triple kill on an M-COM. I've been killed by grenades about 5 times. Total.

I can't comment on the shift key issue you have. I play on PS3. I get tired of running around as well, but that's the price of having a big map. I'm willing to pay it. Anyway, that's what your squadmates are for. Make a habit of spawning on them and helping them spawn on you. Everybody's happy.

Sniper issues on big maps, not a big deal. You're making it out to be as if it's some kind of plague. It isn't. Quit trying to play the game like MW2. They're nothing alike. Check your surroundings. Watch for muzzle flashes on hillsides, ridges and other obvious sniper spots. I can't stress enough what a little patience can do for you in this game. The moment I start getting impatient, I start dying. Run from cover to cover. Check where you'll be exposed for easy fire lines. Move as little as possible before shooting, then move to another safe spot. Watch what the good players do, and copy them. BC2 is not an arcade game.

You need a shocking amount of XP earned before you gain access to the red dot sight. As I said in my post about CoD4, using iron sights is almost strictly inferior to using red dot sights.

You shouldn't complain about this when you immediately explain it away after. There's a reason Dice doesn't whore out red dot sights. Because they are, in general, superior. Become a good player with iron sights, get your red dot sight if you need it. Most skilled players don't, and will opt for a more useful perk. Don't believe me? Start swapping out kits with dead players as you run around. You'll find a surprising dearth of red dot sights. I personally like the red dot sight, but I doubt I'll continue using it as I become better at the game.

It's supposed to be difficult to spot your enemy. It's also difficult for them to spot you, provided you aren't running around on open ground. That's the point. That difficulty is what separates the experienced, skilled players from the tourists and the dabblers. I understand if you can't get behind that, but I and many others like it.

Most of the rest of your complaints are, essentially, comparisons to MW or MW2. Again, CoD games are arcade games. BC2 is not. It's 10x more realistic (though still a far cry from the real thing, I'm sure). That doesn't make BC2 better, just different. That said, Robert above complains that the game is torn between fun and realism. I maintain that the realism is what helps make it fun. I play BC2 on hardcore mode because I like not knowing where my opponents are, I like them not seeing where I am after I kill them, I like realistic bullet damage, I like not knowing how much ammo I have left or having to watch that my teammates don't cross my line of fire. That MAKES it fun for me. But if that kind of challenge is an annoyance to you, I suggest you stick with MW2. It's clearly the game you prefer, and there's nothing wrong with that.

You are correct in stating that "BC2 is not an arcade game." and "The moment I start getting impatient, I start dying."

BC2 is a much slower paced first person shooter game than the vast majority of great FPS's that came before it.

All the FPS games I mentioned are much faster paced than BC2 and perhaps that is why I hate BC2 so much.

I also hate playing a FPS on a console. I've tried it in the past and found it to be far less accurate and fun than a keyboard and mouse.

As for your hardcore comments:"I like not knowing where my opponents are, I like them not seeing where I am after I kill them, I like not knowing how much ammo I have left or having to watch that my teammates don't cross my line of fire."

I am in agreement with you on that. My favorite Modern Warfare mode is Hardcore where all those things apply.

I guess it comes down to the fact that BC2 has a very different feel than almost all previous first person shooters that I've played.

In my opinion these differences cause the game to feel really horrible and not fun at all.

Others, you for example, like the game the way it is. I guess that's just the way it goes :)

"It's different, not worse." and "Learn to play." are your two defenses.

Basically, you argue it's a matter of taste. It is, to a large extent.

Regardless, after 12 hours of playing a game I'd hope I'd find the fun in it. I play these games seriously aiming to build skill and be useful to my team. If anyone should find a team-based shooter like BFBC2 fun, it should be me (aside from the ridiculous spotting issues). There are so many frustrating factors to this game that aren't present in other high-quality shooters (as I outlined) that I am convinced to not play the game further.

"Realism" is BS--it's a defense for nothing. This game isn't realistic. It shouldn't take me four bullets or more to kill people. I shouldn't be in first-person if this game aims to be realistic, either, because that limits my field of view significantly more than it should. I shouldn't have a radar. I shouldn't have a gauge that tells me how damaged vehicles are. I shouldn't be able to see bars and indicators above friendly players' heads. There shouldn't be flags on the field and points gained for holding them. Realism is no excuse for a design decision aside from radical cases.

"Contrary to your assessment, I've not found there's not much of a snowball effect to gaining experience because of perks/equipment."

OK, great. I found that in the first 10 hours of play, it really mattered what I had unlocked. I did not have access to three slots worth of specializations (at least)--having these would make my XP gain a good bit faster.

"They can become competent and proficient with one class quickly, or they can spread out and be more versatile, but proficiency will take longer. It's not objectively bad design. YOU just don't like it."

It is bad design because it places unnecessary rewards in the game that stifle the experience of new players and punish players for no other reason than that they haven't spent enough time in th game.

"Grenades are simply not an issue."

I've played plenty of matches and randomly dying to grenades is an issue. I wouldn't have noticed it if it were not. There's no excuse for this game to have no indication grenades have landed aside from the visual cue if you're facing the thrower.

"Sniper issues on big maps, not a big deal. You're making it out to be as if it's some kind of plague. It isn't. Quit trying to play the game like MW2. "

It's not a plague--it's not gamebreaking--but it's true that snipers in this game are very strong combatants. They have a long range weapon on big maps, they have a mortar strike to take out encampments, and they have pistols that are effective at short range. Most of the times I die, it's not snipers, grenades, or rocket launcher fire.

"Run from cover to cover. Check where you'll be exposed for easy fire lines. Move as little as possible before shooting,"

I know this and this is how I behave. The problem is that because of the ridiculous spawning mechanics and spotting difficulty, I don't nkow where enemies are coming from and I can't find good places to be in most instances. I'll just get sniped randomly from some direction opposite to that which most enemies seem to be coming from. This game usually doesn't allow battle lines to be formed, so taking cover is shockingly difficult. This wasn't a problem in MW2. It's not a problem in GA either.

I love the slower pace of BC2. Though it can become overly stressful. Playing the 4 squad deathmatch games is enough to give you an anxiety attack, and I will admit that snipers have an unfair advantage in that mode (imagine that tense sniper scene in Saving Private Ryan). Which is why I mostly stick with Rush and Conquest. Rush in particular can become insanely hectic when it comes down to the wire.

As for playing on a console, I fully agree it's MUCH tougher on a console (but again, I enjoy the chance to get good at something I'm not). I prefer FPSs on PC. But it's not a dealbreaker for me. I got it on PS3 because my brother and two friends have crappy PCs and we all wanted to play BC2 together.

And I commend Dice for taking a cue from MW on implementing a hardcore mode. Difference in realism between the two games on hardcore mode comes down to all the other factors we've discussed, plus the destructible environments--which I LOVE.

From there, like you said, it's just a matter of preference. To each his own. BC2 is hardly perfect. The ragdoll collision detection is pretty awful (dead guys poking through fences and walls), team imbalances being perpetuated from game to game, having to run long distances, not being able to go prone, the tracer gun seeming to be useless against choppers, tank rounds going through undestroyed cover to kill me, assault class being vastly inferior to the others (who runs out of ammo? nobody, that's who), stuff like that. All fairly minor quibbles though.

See, I just can't see where you're coming from on this. I don't have these spotting issues, and I don't know why you do. I'd estimate about 50-60% of the time I know who killed me and their general location, and the reason I died was because I didn't spot them quickly enough to line up a shot. Mostly that comes down to patience and surroundings awareness. And it's not like I'm very good at the game. I only get a KD ratio above 1 maybe once in four or five games.

"Realism" is BS--it's a defense for nothing. This game isn't realistic. It shouldn't take me four bullets or more to kill people. I shouldn't be in first-person if this game aims to be realistic, either, because that limits my field of view significantly more than it should I shouldn't have a radar. I shouldn't have a gauge that tells me how damaged vehicles are. I shouldn't be able to see bars and indicators above friendly players' heads. There shouldn't be flags on the field and points gained for holding them. Realism is no excuse for a design decision aside from radical cases.

Oh, I agree. Hence hardcore mode. Try it. You might like it. I agree in that your field of view is severely limited, but that's hardly unique to BC2. The game isn't aiming to BE realistic, it's aiming to be fun and MORE realistic, setting it apart from MW2, offering a different experience. We're only talking about relative realism, not actual realism. So in that sense my "realism" defense is not BS.OK, great. I found that in the first 10 hours of play, it really mattered what I had unlocked. I did not have access to three slots worth of specializations (at least)--having these would make my XP gain a good bit faster.You say that, but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you quantified your experience gain? Do you have the numbers? Can you control for your improving ability to play? 10 hours is a very short time to play this sort of game. Online FPS enthusiasts, as you seem to classify yourself as, play these games for hundreds of hours. You can't make it through 10 hours of not having all the unlocks you think you need before throwing in the towel? Remember what I said about patience? Maybe there's a pattern here.

It is bad design because it places unnecessary rewards in the game that stifle the experience of new players and punish players for no other reason than that they haven't spent enough time in th game.

Disagree. I never felt I was being punished. I felt the designers were staggering the rewards from the outset, and if that meant familiarizing myself with straight gunplay for a couple hours, big deal. I wasn't going to get all sweaty and red-faced about it. Certainly didn't feel it merited giving up on a game purchase after a modicum of effort.

I've played plenty of matches and randomly dying to grenades is an issue. I wouldn't have noticed it if it were not. There's no excuse for this game to have no indication grenades have landed aside from the visual cue if you're facing the thrower.

I'm not sure if it's an unlucky streak or the way you play or something about PC players, but I've yet to find hand grenades as an issue. I move around a lot. Despite what you think, it is very possible to differentiate a grenade from the rest of the crap flying around. Think of a hockey puck. The first time you watch a hockey game it seems impossible to follow the thing. Watch a hockey game with a hardcore fan. They never lose track of it. It's something that comes with experience. If you're using cover properly, it's almost impossible for someone to throw a grenade and kill you without them completely exposing themselves to you first.

it's true that snipers in this game are very strong combatants. They have a long range weapon on big maps, they have a mortar strike to take out encampments, and they have pistols that are effective at short range. Most of the times I die, it's not snipers, grenades, or rocket launcher fire.

Recon is meant to be strong, I think. Maybe a little too strong, I don't know. From my experience, engineers are the best class (great defensive abilities, no giveaway muzzle flash or gunfire sounds, accurate, low kickback midrange submachine guns, keep vehicles up and running), followed closely by medic and recon, assault way last. Engineers and medics are game changers, especially in Rush mode. Sniper rifles in the right hands are devastating, but they're supposed to be. That's why you have to play the game completely differently than MW2. You can't take the shortest route from A to B and assume if you sprint and hop around, you'll be fine. Like I said, as you learn the maps and become better at spotting, you'll start to notice where snipers are instinctively. You'll see movement in the trees or a flash on a rock. If you react quickly, he's toast. Easily. It's frustrating to get taken down by an enemy that you can't see, but for me that's part of the challenge. Part of the "relative realism" I mentioned earlier.

And again, I rarely die to grenades or RPGs. I don't know why you die to them so often. I die to snipers often, though. Maybe around or a little less than half the time.

The problem is that because of the ridiculous spawning mechanics and spotting difficulty, I don't nkow where enemies are coming from and I can't find good places to be in most instances. I'll just get sniped randomly from some direction opposite to that which most enemies seem to be coming from. This game usually doesn't allow battle lines to be formed, so taking cover is shockingly difficult. This wasn't a problem in MW2. It's not a problem in GA either.

I haven't had these issues. I don't have problems finding good cover. Spotting is challenging, but it goes both ways. You can get an idea of where your enemy is by sound (directional sound is very helpful) and tracer fire and using cover to check your surroundings. You find good places by being patient and moving into safe areas. Battle lines form due to the squad spawning mechanic, a feature I find very useful and fun. Recons often take up positions where they're out of regular line of sight for a reason, which is why as you run--even in an area you think is safe, you should stop, get down, get behind cover, listen, pop out and then back into cover, etc. It'll up your survivability tenfold to habitualize a little caution in your movement routines. Reckless running about like you can get away with in MW2 simply doesn't fly due to the large, open nature of the maps. If that's not okay with you, then yes, BC2 isn't the game for you.

Hrm, I would say that your assessment of grendades is poor. You don't infact die instantly if they are around you. You die if you're on them of very close to them. There is also an orange indicator on the grendade, which makes them easier to see.

The leveling system I think is great. This is because the amount of XP you need to unlock the "higher level" weapons is scaled. In one match I unlocked the first two medic weapons. Maybe that's because I played BF2, BF2142, and even the BFBC2 beta so I knew what to expect. I don't think it's hard to get good weapons quickly. As someone above mentioned, the first sniper rifle you start with is one of the best.

I don't have time to leave a long post like the others atm, but if you'd like to pick my brain later, please do.

Much of my assessment is from context. I have played many shooters in my life, but I have not played this particular series much. If I was already trained to play this game before I started playing it, I'd probably have liked it more.

So this breaks down to a matter of what the player is used to coming into the game. So much for fruitful discussion.

So this breaks down to a matter of what the player is used to coming into the game. So much for fruitful discussion.

I disagree here as well. The only Battlefield game I've ever played prior was Battlefield 2 back in 2005. Haven't touched a Battlefield game in over 4 years. My last major online FPS was MW, which I played regularly for about a year. My adaptation to BC2 had nothing to do with what I was used to and everything to do with my willingness to learn a new game and a new way to play.

People grow accustomed to garbage and think it's great on a daily basis.

The key is to be aware of the learning process and take your initial frustration into account in sensible judgments. Is a mechanic actually well-balanced, or did you simply get used to something that was annoying?

I think that you're not actually--in your words--"taking your initial frustration into account in sensible judgements." Are the mechanics actually imbalanced, or are you simply not used to something that you find annoying?

I've logged 63 hours of BFBC2, and it's become my most played FPS--within a month! (After single-player STALKER and the Quake series, I believe.) I am not particularily an FPS junkie, so it surprised me how much I got into this one.

I had originally found your blog because of your posts on Global Agenda, and I liked your well-articulated insights into the mechanics as well as the upcoming 1.3 patch changes. However, I find the vertical advancement in GA to be frustrating and a bit of a joke, whereas I feel they pretty much nailed it in BFBC2. The game is not without flaws either, but I think that the mechanics and game design are damn near perfect for a FPS with mild RPG elements. Graphics and setting aside, you can see that both games are actually pretty similar when it comes down to their core gameplay, though GA offers a lobby, cosmetic changes, and territorial conquest (which I cannot speak to). This isn't a comparison however.

You cannot use your class-specific utility ability until you’ve unlocked it, which may take many matches. This is hideously awful design.

You can pick up kits from any dead player and use their guns and abilities.. You can be in your very first game and pick up a kit from a level 50 player... enemy or teammate alike. It won't automatically make you a god, but there are no zero restrictions to using any weapon or specialization. With one keypress while looking at a "weapon" on the ground, you swap your entire loadout with theirs. This even includes the semi-exclusive WWII rifle they gave as a fun bonus to players who own more than one game of the franchise.

If you are skilled, you can use this to great improvisational advantage. A medic can pick up an assault, recon or engineer kit to destroy a tank or stationary weapon with C4 or an RPG. Anyone can revive a medic teammate who happens to fall near you. (They end up swapping kits with you, so now both your roles change.) It also makes for great gameplay experiences, like picking up the scoped rifle of a downed recon squadmate and taking out the sniper that killed him. This is GREAT game design, and it makes the game incredibly more strategic. It gives newbies (to the game, but not the genre) a way of bypassing the grind, but it keeps the carrot on the stick for the feeling of progression and longevity of the gameplay. As an interesting point, points gained go toward the class you spawned as. Start as engineer and swap to an assault kit, and you still get points towards your engineer unlocks.

As someone else commented: unlocking a new weapon does not mean it is better, often just different. It generally takes learning a different playstyle: the firing rhythm, recoil, and even the way the sights look. Didn't you argue that in GA the new player experience should ease you into learning the maps and the gameplay styles? A new player has to learn and adapt progressively with new abilities, responsibilities, and with weapons and items as well.

You'll always have higher level players that still don't know that they have more to do than just shoot at moving things... there's objectives to take, ammo to resupply, targets to spot, motion-detector mines, medkits, and reviving fallen mates. These are not twitch skills, but they really differentiate the skilled players. Some people just can't multitask, and in any shooter game with more than run and gun you see this problem--people who only think about their kill count but not standing on capture points, or healing the guy waving beside them with 5% hp.

That may be indicative that BFBC2 bucks the trend. Or it means that the only people "dumb enough" to fall into the trap of playing the game are the inexperienced. It may be a matter of developed tastes. People who have played a lot of shooters and decided they like arcade-ish games will gravitate towards something like MW2 or Unreal Tournament games, whereas players who find they love realism will pick up Red Orchestra or another such intensely simulationist/realistic game. BFBC2 is like a cheap wine--it's good enough for the pallets of unwizened tasters, but not sufficient in any one area for people with more developed tastes.

Perhaps that entirely misses the mark, but I find the parallel interesting.

It seems like you feel the game should make concessions to be more like other games--but these are not due to flaws of game design, but your preference (and Robert's) for style of game. I've also played and enjoyed the hell out of the Quake and UT series, BF1942 and BF2, TF2, COD, COD2, COD4, and CoD:MW2.

Just because some elements work nicely in one doesn't make them a necessity in another game. One person's dislike for gravity with the bullet drop is ten other people's appreciation for the fact that sniping long distance actually takes MORE skill.

You not only have to lead your shots, but you also have bullet drop and the time it takes for the bullet to travel. In the original BC and MW2 the bullets are not projectiles, but "hitscan". This means if you are sighted directly on the enemy when firing, you hit instantly... no matter how far you are. Tracers are added purely for visual effect. In BFBC2, you really notice you have to lead as well as compensate for gravity. Try shooting down a moving UAV with an automatic weapon, even with a scope. Or try downing a moving chopper purely from the machine gunner seat of a tank.

You complained about not knowing the range of a weapon, but because of the projectile system, you can actually hit someone clear across the map with any gun, provided you compensate for the distance, leading, and gravity. You'll see shots hit the target once you take even a few potshots at a distant (and immobile) sniper with even an unscoped weapon with iron sights. As a sniper, one of the tips is to take a test shot near where you're covering. Fire at a wall or a surface at a similar distance, anything you'd notice the bullet mark. You'll be able to see the amount your bullet drops and compensate by aiming up accordingly. There's next to no barrel sway, and no wind, humidity, or coriolis effect to make it a realistic sniping simulation by any means... but it takes more skill than just pointing directly at your intended target.

I still use the first sniper rifle most of the time even with all guns unlocked, so you aren't far from testing it yourself to see how balanced or overpowered they are. Now that you know, when you get a chance you can just grab the kit of a sniper from your team or the enemy's and have a 50 cal with a 12x scope.

With a shotgun and the shotgun slug specialization, it's actually possible to snipe someone across a vast area. Except you have no scope and have to do all your compensation with ironsights, luck, and usually a newbie enemy sniper who doesn't move. With normal shotgun cartridges, you may score a hit on someone far away, but it'll be rare at best, and one pellet does maybe 4hp of damage.

I wasn't complaining that the ballistics modelling is accurate. I was complaining about the lack of information. Why don't they tell you what the stated effective range of the weapon is? (information that anyone in real life would know about such a weapon if they were in the military.)

I wish they'd just give you a reasonable amount of information about each weapon. ROF in rounds/minute, effective range in meters, clip size, bullet type, and perhaps a few other reasonable, realistic measures of weapon performance.

If this game is going to be realistic, why does it show you that rotated crosshair as an indicator of hitting an enemy combatant? Surely, the game's vaunted realism would be hurt by such a crutch.

Last post, I promise. Not sure why I feel compelled to write so much, but as I said, I found your GA posts pretty insightful and your arguments sound, but here I think you missed the mark.

Ironically, now that I've reached nearly the top of the vertical advancement ladder in BFBC2, I don't feel as compelled to keep going. I have nothing left to unlock save for 2 weapons (at rank 27). My roommate is all about getting a bronze star for every single weapon plus all the badges, but to me that sort of grind is really not rewarding. It's simply obsessive compulsive behaviour at that point. Anyway.

You mentioned needing four shots to kill someone. What, you'd prefer less? It takes everyone else the same number of shots to kill you too. On the console, DICE has actually mentioned that infantry take 125% damage from other infantry weapons. This usually translates to about 3 bullets from guns like the overused M60. This is supposedly because console users are either not as proficient at aiming, or because the controller is seen as less precise. I had always wondered why my roommate seemed to be such a more efficient killer on the PS3 with a single burst from almost any gun. Obviously this alters the pacing of console matches.

There's tables where someone breaks down every weapon from the PC game data. There's no sniper rifle that does one hit kills from more than a few meters unless it's a headshot. Also, according to the info there, the grenades that you hate so much only get a kill on an unhurt soldier if they are within about 1.25 meters. (Base dmg of 110 that drops after 1m)

From my own stats, I have a good enough view that grenades are not overpowered at all. Of my 2428 kills, a whopping 71 were from grenades. That's a mere 2.9% of my total kills. The in-game stats tell me that I have thrown a total of 1556 grenades! Now then, I might just be a shitty throw, right? Only 4.6% of my grenades resulted in a kill attributed to me. However, the game also tells me that I have 32.26% accuracy with them. If I can take that to simply mean doing more than zero damage, that means only 14% of my grenade throws that DID hit someone were fatal. Not sure how that stacks up with other players, but if they were so unbalanced, I'd imagine my kills would be much higher even with the same number of throws.

Interestingly enough, MW2 hardcore gives the player only around 30hp. I believe BC2 HC mode is 67 hp, which does change the pace significantly enough, and allows for one-shot-kills to the torso with the sniper rifles.

I believe one other difference from the COD franchise that is new in BFBC2 is the health recovery over time. This does result in a bit more arcade-style dashing about because you can take a few bullets and live. My roommate showed me that in original BFBC you had a hp meter that only medics could refill, which really does change the gameplay. The slow recovery is not realistic at all, but I really like it. It changes the pacing of the game and discourages camping, while not making medics useless by any means.

Anyway. I was originally going to make some comparisons to GA, but realized that was beyond the point. I wanted to defend a game that I find is actually quite well polished all-around. While its appeal may be to those that favour "realism", I argue that there is actually just a different level of complexity that I find much more satisfying than most other shooters. GA and Team Fortress 2 have some of those elements, but TF2's unlock method used to be entirely random (yikes), and GA's is heavily grind-based with little reward correlated to performance. And there's less rewards. Hopefully they can draw some inspiration from both COD and BF franchises to actually evolve the genre rather than reskin it.

Thanks for reading through this wall of text. Will gladly meet up in-game for either BFBC2 or GA :)

Thanks for keeping a level head and writing well-reasoned points about the game.

I usually enjoy realism in games, but in online shooters I find that people are rewarded disproportionately for behaving in an unrealistic fashion because there are always gaps in the realism that offer a significant advantage to exploiters. I don't feel like the realistic experience in BFBC2 multiplayer is strong enough to warrant the "it's realistic so it's better" defense.

This is entirely a matter of taste, I'm sure.

What's your username on Global Agenda? I'll gladly play with you. I go by "evizaer". I mainly play robo and medic.

Yes, I have logged hundreds of hours in Wolf3d, DOOM series, Duke3D, Heretic and Hexen, Rise of the Triad, CS classic, Day of Defeat, Natural Selection, Unreal Tournament Classic, UT2k4, Urban Terror, MoH, STALKER, etc etc etc. I also really enjoy various RTS games, RPGs, MMOs, and heck, even casual puzzle games. I'm coming from what I believe is a balanced perspective, and my field of work is not in video gaming, but communication. I also worked at an interactive agency, where user experience is studied to death.

It's possibly true that many fans of BC2 are inexperienced, but it doesn't mean that it invalidates the challenge of it or make the game "HORRIBLE" just because it does, in fact, have departures from previous titles. However, your observation could even imply that it's simply a problem of adaptation and being left behind that makes "veteran" fps players shy away in favor of pure-twitch shooters. There isn't something arguing that there's something actually deficient in the game design... indeed, it's DIFFERENT. But not very much so.

Both you and evizaer are confronting me back with a bit of an elitist attitude when I am merely countering what looks like first-glance impressions and frustration. There's nothing to say that you can't like it. Unfairly chalking up personal frustrations to problems of the game design seems to say that you've already made up your mind about it though, and I say that's unfortunate.

My own experience with BC2 started low because I was rusty from not playing shooters often, but as I warmed up those muscle memories and learned the game, and taught myself new tricks, my enjoyment increased exponentially. Even more so when I finally got into a game with several real life friends and dominated several matches in a row as the top squad, as evidence that teamwork and coordination do more than sheer reflexes and trigger fingers.

Absolutely. Realism is not a defense for it to be a better game, because I'm interested in how FUN a game is, not how pretty it is. However, if it can be great fun as well as immersive, it wins points in my book. I'm all about gameplay mechanics though, and for proof of that, I can say I'm a fan of Dwarf Fortress as well. It's just a bit TOO obscure for me, so I ended up playing about 8 fortresses before getting tired of it. I still check the updates though.

I don't think all that behind-the-scenes information about ROF etc is necessary. The bars that shows damage, firing rate and accuracy are pretty standard for any shooter game, and a visual comparison is actually what I prefer rather than numbers. From a design perspective, as I am a graphic designer and not just a gamer geek.

To me, rounds per minute and bullet type means nothing. "This one has more recoil," or "this one fires 3-round bursts with no option to change it" are factors that I consider. As with any game, you learn as you experience it. In a game where everything is based on real weapons, sure, it'd be cool to have that info as well, but it's also overwhelming and assuming that level of realism actually does a useful service to enhancing the experience for a majority of players.

In terms of the ballistics: the result is that there's no "effective range"-- it's based on how you aim, and the unlimited distance is compensated against because of the ballistics model. You'd still be lucky as hell to hit a moving target from a large distance with a pistol, but a pro marksman would probably be able to hit a still one on the second or third shot.

I happen to enjoy both games, and I happen to prefer the way DICE made BC2 for multiplayer. COD still has always been a better single-player experience, and BC2's was horribly derivative (but well-done, if short). BFBC2 does not have harrier strafing runs, chopper attacks, or nukes. I am glad it doesn't, and I am glad someone has to pilot the choppers. It doesn't have claymores and sentry guns, and I wish it did. The Frostbite engine's destructibility and the vehicles are just something that gives every fight more of a dynamic. If you personally find the vehicle fights predictable, you and your enemies may just be using them that way.

Pulling out that last jab at the "vaunted realism" is unfair too. It's not the key selling point, it's a blend of all of the factors. There are other games (ARMA, America's Army) that try to simulate better, but they fall short in other places (immersion, graphics, FUN). I'm not trying to argue why you should like red versus white wine. Chacun à son goût.

Now, however, if only GA was a bit more like wine than a cheap cooler... hopefully future patches bring it up to that point. Korwyn in Global Agenda, though I am only trial for the moment. 10 Medic, 7 Robo, 9 Recon, 12 Assault. I'm iWoo on BF:BC2. Glad to play with any of you!

Your right that my responses are more emotional and stem from trying out BC2 and failing. Hard.

I didn't like how much I had to run forever because no vehicles were around.

I didn't like how there was a tank right there at spawn but it didn't seem like I could do anything about it because I didn't "unlock" the tank killing weapons yet.

I didn't like how I couldn't hit anything with my gun, even stationary targets. This is probably because I was aiming directly at them and not accounting for 'gravity'.

I found the menu navigation for going through the classes and their weapons confusing.

I felt ASSAULTED by the sound. Like they ramped up the volume meter to 11 in order to show "how awesome they are with THX sound".

I didn't like how hazy things get when using a scope to look far away, nor did I like how hard it was to see anything when a near by explosion kicks up a lot of dust.

I disliked how against a tank, there was no such thing as 'cover' since the buildings are all destroyable.

So after spending many matches trying to get a kill, or trying to get experience trying to capture objectives, I said "FRAK THIS PIECE OF CRAP" and haven't looked back.

I've played slower paced games in the past without issue.

I just think that this particular game is so far of a departure from my previous FPS experiences that I've enjoyed.

Even Battlefield 1942 series were much more "arcade style" in their action approach.

I just feel that BC2 doesn't reward you very much for playing. I spent a few hours trying it out and didn't unlock anything, didn't advance any levels, and wasn't personally any better at playing than when I started.

I've done really well in sooo many other FPS's that I find BC2 not so good :)

Why we're here.

That's a Terrible Idea is a tag-team blog about designing better games. Though we focus on MMOs, we both are avid gamers that happily reach beyond the mainstream to find the games that suit us the best. We aim to offer insight and analysis on design decisions in existing games and constructive suggestions for the future.

Though we are both amateurs in game design, we spend many hours thinking about this stuff and want to create a place to cultivate useful discussion and analysis. We encourage experts and professionals as well as fellow amateurs to critique our work. Please help us improve the quality of the material here with your insight and knowledge.

We'd like to move past punditry towards a small, close community of gamers and game designers. Above all else, we want to facilitate the design of better games.